You're wrong. I have found a story on the wristbones - from September, not November but it doesn't say that Floresiensis is a monkey. It does say that Floresinsis is not a dwarfed version of modern humans.

But the hobbit's wrist is basically indistinguishable from an African ape or early hominin-like wrist--nothing at all like that seen in modern humans and Neandertals.

"Basically, the wrist evidence tells us that modern humans and Neandertals share an evolutionary grandparent that the hobbits do not, but all three share an evolutionary great-grandparent. If you think of modern humans and Neandertals as being first cousins, then the hobbit is more like a second cousin to both."

Add in the evidence of tool use and it is pretty clear that Floresiensis is a hominin - falling between humans and modern apes.

Whether the Late Pleistocene hominin fossils from Flores, Indonesia, represent a new species, Homo floresiensis, or pathological modern humans has been debated. Analysis of three wrist bones from the holotype specimen (LB1) shows that it retains wrist morphology that is primitive for the African ape-human clade. In contrast, Neandertals and modern humans share derived wrist morphology that forms during embryogenesis, which diminishes the probability that pathology could result in the normal primitive state. This evidence indicates that LB1 is not a modern human with an undiagnosed pathology or growth defect; rather, it represents a species descended from a hominin ancestor that branched off before the origin of the clade that includes modern humans, Neandertals, and their last common ancestor.

The creationist argument has been that H. florensiensis are the remains of modern humans with a disease; the wrist bones are an indication that H. florensiensis are not simply diseased humans -- they are on a distinct branch of the hominid line.

I see one of two possibilities:

you read where the wrist bones different from those of modern H. sapiens or H. neanderthalensis, and you are misremembering, thinking they were saying that these are the wrists "of a monkey," or

the article you read is now trying to spin the news, changing the creationist story from H. florensiensis being diseased humans to being completely non-human.

Until you can actually cite the actual article that you read, I will remain content to assume you are not remembering the article correctly, or did not understand it when you read it, or the article is more creationist propaganda.

Nothing there about being monkeys or having monkey wrists, but it does talk about the tools found:

quote:The scientists studied wear patterns and residue on about 100 stone tools found with the remains of hobbits (Homo floresiensis) in Liang Bua cave by Australian and Indonesian researchers.

The researchers found evidence of plant work and butchery on stone flakes and cobbles from archaeological layers ranging from 12,000 to 55,000 years old.

The scientists also identified blood and bone on some tools. The team discovered the remains of fires and numerous animal bones, especially of baby stegodons (small elephants), komodo dragons and giant rats. The animal bones were found near tools and hobbit remains, and had cut marks indicative of butchery.

But the researchers also found that more than 90 per cent of the residues were from woody and fibrous plants.

They said it didn’t mean that the metre-high people ate only a little meat, but rather that most of the tools studied so far were used for working with plants.

Notice that the animal bones had evidence of butchery.

Doing a google on "homo floresiensis monkey wrist" I found that this is rather old information, and not surprisingly in misrepresented ...

quote:But the discovery of the fossilised "Hobbit", as she quickly became known, has provoked a long-running and sometimes acrimonious debate among scientists: was she really one of a race of mini-humans or was she merely one of us, but with a brain-shrinking disease?

Now scientists have analysed fossilised wrist bones that were part of the original discovery in 2003 but had not been looked at in detail. They say they prove the Hobbit really was a distinct and previously unknown type of human, and not just an abnormally small member of our own species.

That analysis has revealed significant differences between the bones and human or Neanderthal equivalents. At the same time there are crucial similarities with older species of human and living apes such as chimps and gorillas. The researchers say this puts paid to the idea that Homo floresiensis could be a "normal" human being with a brain-shrinking disease called microcephaly or some form of dwarfism.

quote:In the new edition of Science (subscription required), Matthew W. Tocheri and colleagues have analyzed the wrist bones of this controversial specimen and determined that the species retains a primitive morphology from before the origin of modern humans. Wrist elements can be powerful diagnostic tools in classification because the bones are so numerous and can undergo evolutionary changes through both adaptive pressures (such as morphologies necessary for grip structure or style of locomotion) or because of neutral changes as the result of reproductive isolation.

As the authors described the bones in the article released today:

Each is well preserved and shows no signs of pathology or abnormal development. . . . [T]hese three articulating bones display none of the shared, derived features of modern human and Neandertal carpals. Instead, they show the general symplesiomorphic pattern exhibited by all extant African apes, as well as fossil hominins that preserve comparable wrist morphology and date before 1.7 Ma.

A symplesiomorphy is any trait that exists in multiple living species and also in the most recent common ancestor of those species.

This shows your assertion(s) to be wrong, thus calling into sever question your ability to cast aspersions on other people.

I suggest you look in your history file (if you haven't cleared it) to see where you saw the article.